9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the impugned order dated 21.11.2016 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) upheld the order-in-original and rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is registered for providing taxable services under the category of transportation of goods by road service. The limited issue involved in this appeal is only against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same issue. He further submitted that the appellant are not disputing the delay in filing the service tax returns for the period October 2006 to March 2011 but the original authority has imposed the penalty under a non-existent provision for the period during which the default was committed by the appellant. He further submitted that the provisions of Section 70 of Finance Act, 1994 prescribing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rughani Brothers Vs. CST Mumbai reported in 2015 (9) TMI 684-CESTAT Mumbai, wherein it has been held that as per Section 70 before the amendment, a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- per return is the maximum penalty which can be imposed under Rule 7C. He also submitted that only one return pertaining to the period O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 of the Finance Act, 1994, prior to its amendment and after the amendment effective from 08.04.2011, I find that with regard to six returns the appellant is liable to pay Rs. 12,000/- penalty at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per return. I also find that the two returns pertaining to the period April 2009 to Sept. 2009 and April 2010 and Sept. 2010 were nil return and therefore, he is not liable to pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
